Chapters
The Edict of Diocletian on Maximum Prices from 301 CE, known as Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de Pretiis Rerum Venalium, was intended to combat the progressive inflation in the Roman Empire by setting maximum prices on more than 1,400 products, slaves or services. The edict has survived to our times partly due to fragments of inscriptions (in Greek and Latin) on stone slabs found mainly in the eastern territories of the Empire, in 42 places.
Background of events
After the death of Alexander Severus in 235 CE, the last member of the Syrian dynasty, there was an economic and political crisis. It was known as the “Third Century Crisis” and lasted until Diocletian came to rule in 284 CE. At that time, the Roman Empire, constantly destabilized by internal struggles for power, had to defend its borders against attacks by neighbouring peoples and states. The need to defend the borders against the invasions of the Germanic tribes and the Persian army forced the emperors to over-expand their army, the cost of which increased and the Roman economy was unable to bear them.
Tetrarchy
Emperor Diocletian learned from the experience of previous decades and carried out a thorough reform of the Roman state. By focusing first on political stabilization, he realized that one person could no longer manage such a vast territory. It was not possible to react quickly and effectively in specific situations that occurred at its distant ends. So he introduced what he called the tetrarchy.
The emperor appointed a co-ruler with the title of Augustus and entrusted him with the management of the western part of the state – he entrusted this position to Maximian. Diocletian remained in the East but retained sovereignty over all the rest. Each Augustus found a deputy with the title of Caesar to help him; Diocletian chose Galerius, and Maximian chose Constantius. The emperor assumed that after twenty years of rule, Augustus would voluntarily relinquish power and the Caesars would take their place. They will appoint new Caesars, who will also become Augustus in the future, which was to be continued. However, this system turned out to be utopian, because after the abdication of Diocletian and his counterpart in the West, new civil wars broke out.
Monetary and economic reform
The division of power in the Empire caused a progressive bureaucratization, which required more and more financial outlays. The four seats of the emperors: Nicomedia (Diocletian), Milan (Maximian), Serdica, later Thessalonika (Galerius), Trier (Constantius) required a sufficient number of officials to be served. In order to obtain more funds, the emperors imposed enormous fiscal burdens on the population and supplemented the shortages in the treasury by the so-called “Spoiling the coin”, ie circulating a coin which, instead of precious metals, contained a large admixture of base metals. Thus, the denarius – the basic Roman coin – originally had 4.5 g of silver; during the reign of Nero, the amount decreased to 3.8 g; and by the end of the 3rd century CE. The denarius was already in practice a copper coin with a small amount of silver. The “spoilage of the coin” over the centuries led to hyperinflation, which became the main problem of the Roman state in the 3rd century CE.
After the stabilization of the rule and political situation of Diocletian in the 90s of the third century CE made attempts to save the monetary system. The ruler tried to strengthen confidence in the coin by, inter alia, ceasing to use the current denarius and replacing it with another silver coin – argentus (literally “silver”) – which referred to the denarius of Nero in the amount of the metal.
However, this did not lead to any visible improvement in the situation. Diocletian with the expansion of bureaucracy, which resulted from the appointment of three co-ordinates and the implementation of subsequent construction programs, including in Nicomedia, was unable to find savings. Therefore, at the end of 301 CE introduced an edict on maximum prices. One of the ancient sources – Lactantius – speaks very critically about this idea, believing that it contributed to the destruction of trade and bloodshed1. We do not know if the blood was shed because of the execution of disobedient citizens or if it resulted from social problems. According to Lactantius, Diocletian first caused a price increase and then was unable to fight it. It should be noted, however, that Lactantius was a Christian and his treatise was mainly aimed at slandering Diocletian, due to his dislike of Christ’s followers. An excerpt from the work is great proof of this:
While Diocletian, that author of ill, and deviser of misery, was ruining all things, he could not withhold his i